Not sure if you're saying that in jest, but I don't get the logic of people thinking 2-0 in the finals is better than 2-4. 2-0 in the finals just means Hakeem lost before reaching the finals in the other seasons. How is that better than reaching the finals and then losing?
"Legacy talk" is one of the worst sports discussions ever. "What will the average uneducated NBA fan say about LeBron James in 20 years if he doesn't win this title?" "Will LeBron still be one of the greatest players ever if he loses more NBA championships than he wins?" I don't care. There is plenty to talk about in regards to this series without beginning some boring highly opinionated debate. There is little room for debate or discussion. Lists of the greatest players of all time are stupid.
A lot of people overlook how good Jordan's teammates were. He "retired" and the team still went to the finals. That says a lot about how much help he had in winning all those rings.
But the non-MJ teams got beat in the second round both years. I agree about the talent on the second three rings. And he took that talent to 72 win season, and averaged 67 per year. But the first three, not so much. He had Pippen, Grant and role players/shooters. All other teams except Hakeem had better supporting casts.
Second round was pretty good. We almost got beat in the second round with two elite players and a decent bench.
